L2 Learners’ Pragmatic Output in a Face-To-Face Vs. a Computer-Guided Role-Play Task: Implications For TBLT

Accomplishing oral interactive workplace tasks requires various language abilities, including pragmatics. While technology-mediated tasks are thought to offer many possibilities for teaching and assessing second language (L2) pragmatics, their effectiveness – especially those facilitated by an AI agent (artificial intelligence agent) – remains to be explored. This study investigated how 47 tertiary-level learners of English as a second language (ESL) performed on an oral interactive task that required them to make requests to their boss in two distinct modalities. Each participant completed the same task with a fully automated AI agent and with a human interlocutor in a face-to-face format. Findings showed that both modalities elicited language use relevant to the pragmatics target. However, fully automated interactions were found to be more transactional, while face-to-face interactions were more functionally oriented (e.g. more frequent/varied supportive moves). Although fully automated interactive tasks may be useful for eliciting requests, replicating human-to-human interactions remains a challenge

Openings and closings in human-human versus human-spoken dialogue system conversations

Although conversation openings and closings are ritualized speech acts (House & Kádár, 2023), they do require interactional work (Schegloff, 1986). Thus, they are important elements of interactional competence (Roever, 2022) and have been studied extensively in L2 interactions, including various types of technology-mediated communication contexts (e.g., Abe & Roever, 2019; 2020). However, to our knowledge, no research on openings and closings has been conducted with newer technologies such as spoken dialogue systems (SDS). To address this gap, this study compares conversation openings and closings across two modalities: a role-play with a human interlocutor versus with a fully automated agent. We analyzed interactional data from 47 tertiary-level learners of English. A quantitative (e.g., number of turns) and a qualitative, discursive analysis rendered several key findings: 1) learners were more transactionally oriented in SDS modality, but tended to engage in relational discourse with a human interlocutor; 2) humans adapted to the emergent discourse in both modalities; 3) despite training, the human interlocutor was inconsistent in displaying transactional versus interactional patterns with different participants, while the SDS followed the same dialogue structure in each interaction. Findings will be discussed in terms of specific affordances of the two modalities for interactional competence

Using Spoken Dialogue Technology for L2 Speaking Practice: What Do Teachers Think?

Often, second/foreign (L2) language learners receive little opportunity to interact orally in the target language. Interactive, conversation-based spoken dialog systems (SDSs) that use automated speech recognition and natural language processing have the potential to address this need by engaging learners in meaningful, goal-oriented speaking practice. However, these technology-based learning tools are often developed without input from teaching professionals. As part of a larger development effort, this study examined English as a second language (ESL) teachers’ perceptions regarding SDS-based speaking tasks, addressing the following research questions: (a) What do teachers think about the SDS-based tasks? (b) How would they use them in the context of their English instruction? Overall, 16 ESL instructors in an intensive English program in the United States were asked to interact with four SDS-based speaking tasks designed to elicit specific linguistic phenomena (e.g. making requests; wh-questions). The teachers completed a survey after each task to gauge their user experience, level of engagement, and perceptions of the usefulness of the tasks for their teaching contexts. A subgroup of instructors (n = 7) also participated in audio-recorded focus group meetings. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each survey item and the open-ended responses from the surveys and focus groups were analyzed qualitatively for major themes. The findings show that teachers had positive views of the SDS tasks’ potential for speaking practice and diagnostic purposes, primarily in a flipped classroom model. Their perceptions seemed to be related to their own user experience and, in particular, to the perceived authenticity of a given task

Common Ground, Cooperation, and Recipient Design in Human-computer Interactions

In recent years, the number of human-machine interactions has increased considerably. Additionally, we have evidence of linguistic differences between human-machine interactions and human–human conversations (e.g., Timpe-Laughlin et al., 2022). Therefore, it is reasonable to revisit theoretical frameworks that conceptualize interactional language use and investigate to what extent they still apply to technology-mediated interactions. As a first attempt at exploring whether pragmatics theories apply to human-machine interaction, we examined how well Kecskés\u27s (2013) socio-cognitive approach (SCA) focusing on asymmetric interactions (e.g., between interlocutors of different language backgrounds) applies to the asymmetry of human-machine interactions. Using examples from experimental data, we present the nature of common ground between human and machine (spoken dialogue system) interlocutors, focusing on the construction of and reliance on the emergent side of common ground that is informed by the actual situational experience. Like Kecskés, we argue that both egocentrism and cooperation play a role in human-machine interaction. While the former is manifested in approaching the machine interlocutor as if it was human, the latter appears to play a role in common ground seeking and building as well as in recipient design. We demonstrate that Kecskés\u27s SCA is a fitting framework for analyzing human-machine communication contexts

Human Versus Machine: Investigating L2 Learner Output in Face-To-Face Versus Fully Automated Role-Plays

To examine the utility of spoken dialog systems (SDSs) for learning and low-stakes assessment, we administered the same role-play task in two different modalities to a group of 47 tertiary-level learners of English. Each participant completed the task in an SDS setting with a fully automated agent and engaged in the same task with a human interlocutor in a face-to-face format. Additionally, we gauged students’ perceptions of the two delivery formats. Elicited oral performances were examined for linguistic complexity (syntactic complexity, lexical variety, fluency) and pragmatic functions (number and type of requests). Learner performance data across the two delivery modes were comparable although learners spoke slightly longer in the SDS task and used significantly more turns in the face-to-face setting—a finding that may be due to participants deploying more social rapport building moves, clarification requests, and backchanneling. The attitudinal data indicate that, while many learners liked both delivery formats, there was a slight preference for the face-to-face format, mainly due to the presence of body language. Overall, results show that fully automated SDS tasks may constitute a feasible alternative to face-to-face role-plays. Nevertheless, when possible, learners should be given a choice in task format for both learning and assessment

Pragmatic accent: Sociolinguistic and pragmalinguistic examples

In this chapter, it is postulated that foreign language users develop a pragmatic accent, which refers to the systematic occurrence of selected pragmatic features in their performance of communication functions in the target language. In the specification of this term, I refer to two related conceptualizations, one by Scarcella (1992) and the other by Yule (1996). I apply the expression coined by Yule to refer to a phenomenon which is parallel to Scarcella’s discourse accent. In order to substantiate this concept, in later sections of this chapter, first, a summary of the interlanguage pragmatic competence research which I conducted is presented. This empirical endeavour showed that even advanced Polish EFL speakers do not fully approximate the native speaker model and instead retain in their pragmatic output a set of pragmatic features which enables their easy identification as nonnative users. In the subsequent sections, the title concept is further exemplified by means of evidence coming from research reports offered by other researchers or coming from other languages.UAM Pozna